PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K.N. RAMACHANDRAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused -respondents (K.N. Ramachandran and K.N. Venkatachalam) in respect of an offence punishable under S. 7(1) and S. 16(1) (a)(1) read with S. 2(ix) (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The two accused -respondents are brothers. They are running a hotel at door No. 37, Market Road, Pollachi. The second accused -respondent is the licensee for running the hotel business. On 17th January, 1966 at 9 -45 a.m. the Food Inspector of Pollachi Municipality, Sri Samraj John, P.W. 1, went to the hotel of the accused -respondents and found the first accused -respondent to be in charge of the hotel. P W. 1 got suspicion that the Jilebis offered for sale, at the hotel might contain prohibited colouring matter. Therefore, he purchased 12 Jilebis from the first accused and got a cash voucher Ex. P -l for Rs. 3.60 p. In the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 P.W. 1 intimated the first accused that the sample of the jilebis purchased under Ex. P -l would be sent to the Public Analyst, Madras for analysis. Further, he has served the notice under Form VI marked Ex P -2 on the first accused. P. Ws. 2 and 3 attested Ex. P -2. P.W. 1 divided the jilebis into three equal parts and put them in three separate dry and clean bottles brought by him, closed them tightly with tin lids and packed and sealed them at the hotel Itself. One of the three bottles was given to the first accused and his acknowledgment was obtained in the receipt, Ex. P -3. of the remaining two bottles, one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The remaining third bottle was retained by P.W. 1. The report, Ex P -4 was received by P.W. 1 from the Public Analyst. One finds from the contents of Ex P -4 that the sample Jilebi taken from the hotel of the accused -respondents contained metanil yellow, a by -product of coal tar, the use of which is prohibited under Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) During the trial of the case P. Ws. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case. They were treated as hostile by the prosecution and were cross -examined.